N.D. Teachers, School Boards Split Over Arbitration Vote

A nearly two-decades-old debate in North Dakota over binding
arbitration for teacher contracts will be resolved next week when the
question goes before state voters.

The issue has generated passionate differences between the state's
teachers, who staunchly support a bill already passed by the
legislature to allow stalled contract negotiations to be settled by an
independent panel, and advocates for school boards, who reject the idea
that outsiders could make the decisions school boards are elected to
make.

Representatives of both sides agree, though, that the question
prompts little emotion from North Dakotans generally.

"For most citizens, it's not an issue they're very interested in,''
said Walt Hatlestad, the president of the North Dakota Education
Association.

The most recent indicator of public sentiment on the issue is a poll
commissioned by the N.D.E.A. last fall. It showed 45 percent of
respondents favoring the proposal, 25 percent opposed, and 30 percent
undecided.

Even so, the 7,200-member union is trying not to leave the election
results to chance. It is investing $70,000 in member education and
television and radio advertising.

The North Dakota School Boards Association has no plans to run a
media campaign. Instead, it has been relying on word of mouth by its
1,500 members, said Barbara Norby, the group's assistant executive
director.

Despite the lack of much public interest in binding arbitration,
other issues on the June 9 ballot could lure voters to the polls. There
is a question on whether the state's retail businesses should be open
on Sunday, as well as a contest for the Democratic gubernatorial
nomination.

Loss of Accountability Seen

The legislature passed the binding-arbitration bill in 1991. Before
the law could go into effect, however, successful petition campaign
against it forced the measure to appear on the ballot.

The petition drive was spearheaded by Kent French, a Bismarck
businessman, who argues that the binding-arbitration plan "goes against
everything democratic'' and "takes us one step farther away from merit
pay'' for teachers.

Under the current negotiating system, if talks break down between
teacher representatives and the school board, a three-member
fact-finding panel is called in to try to find common ground and issue
a report.

If the report is rejected, it is published in a local newspaper, and
negotiations must resume.

If agreement still cannot be reached, the school board may issue a
contract unilaterally, which individual teachers may accept or
reject.

Under the legislation being put before the voters, the fact-finding
commission would be replaced by an arbitration panel.

Each side would pick a representative who lives in the school
district. Those two members would then have five days to choose a third
person "from the surrounding area'' to serve as chairman or, failing
that, select one from federal or state lists of mediators.

The arbitration panel would then pick the final offer of either the
teachers or the school board. The decision would be final and
binding.

The system would expire on June 30, 1995, unless renewed by the
legislature.

"We think it will provide more realistic proposals and bargaining,''
Mr. Hatlestad said.

But Ms. Norby said the proposal "takes the decisionmaking authority
away from the elected school board and puts it with a three-member
appointed panel ... that [faces] no accountability from
taxpayers.''

"It comes out to be taxation without representation,'' Ms. Norby
added, "if the tax levy increases as a result of the arbitration panel
choosing one or the other of the proposals.''

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.